BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

It makes a bit of a mess of the theme, and I still have a lack of imagination when it comes to plotting mechanics for which a spendable resource would actually be useful.

  per Josh.

I don’t think it dents the theme too much - what is the current “Bodies” GNDT stat, beyond a simple total of all the body rolls we’ve made?

If we assume that “Bodies” represents the amount of influence the writer has had on the script so far, then we can extrapolate it to reflect what cut of the royalties they can expect to get, and we can start using it as a cash value. (And if a writer feels confident about their future earnings, they can spend some of that cash in advance - maybe give up X Royalties to pull strings and reroll a Stunt-Cast die, or introduce a cost for getting new Props made.)

Hmm, well lets see what Our Glorious Leader has to say on the matter.

Kevan - the thematic concern is really rule 2.2. Changing the Acts’ Body Counts, Total Body Counts and Target Body Counts to Royalty Counts is a bit of an obfuscation, although admittedly it does make sense when talking about props and stunt casting. But if Scripters are now encouraged to write a script that reflects the Royalty Count they have rolled, then we can quite happily get to the end of the dynasty with nary a gruesome death to be seen.

Both due to Josh’s concern, and because I don’t think we need a spendable.

Having said the above, the rule changes ‘Bodies’, not ‘Body’... a fine technicality, but possibly a plausible one.

Oh, no, I’m intentionally only changing the word “Bodies”, which (apart from Rule 2.6) is only ever used to refer to the GNDT value. The ruleset would still have “Body Counts”.

The potential confusion between the two is one of the things that I want to fix, here.

Swish.

But yes, I now see the logic, and perhaps having the extra option will shake things up a little. COV: 

Okay, I think I can see a couple of amusing enough applications of this.